Americans Getting Dumber?

[erpowers]

We constantly hear about how American cannot find certain places on the map. This morning on the Today Show there was a discussion about whether Americans are getting dumber. I could not get the video in that NBC has not put up the video. However, I would like duers to discuss two questions. First, do you think Americans are getting dumber? Second, what should be done about the problem?

For me it seems that news stories should use maps when discussing foreign countries. I contend it would help if the reporter doing the story on a foreign country would actually point out the country on a map. From my memory I have never seen a news anchor actually point out foreign countries on a map when reporting about the countries.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. geo-politics

when you see where Turkey is located, how Iran's and Pakistan's borders interact, how Ethiopia and Eritrea are intertwined both politically and geographically, you have a whole different take on the issue.

But our corporate masters don't teach, educate, or inform. They entertain for profit. Therein lies the problem with the news.

[L. Coyote]

2. "Stupidity" is the proper term, and the title of the "must see" Movie

and it offers real insight into American politics.

Once you've seen this great film, you will never complain about "dumbing" down campaigns again!

[erpowers]

16. Was Not Complaining

I was not complaining about the campaigns. I just wanted to spark conversation. The only reason I said we hear about it all the time is that we do. I did not mean to take it lightly. I just wanted to see what other people had to say about the issue.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. It's worse than that. It's "willfully dumber" as if using your intellect

is not patriotic, an affront to "common sense", etc.

[SharonAnn]

33. "Anti-intellectualism" is seen a great deal here in Tennessee. Somehow, knowing things

is a "bad" thing. I was raised in Iowa where education and knowledge were highly regarded, so it's quite a sea change for me.

I'm a member of Mensa, have a graduate degree, have been successful in business (computers), and have to downplay my accomplishments in order to be semi-accepted. Of course, since I'm not "from here" I'll never be really accepted. And, of course, I don't say "Jesus" in every other sentence.

[no_hypocrisy]

34. I am your compatriot on all counts. I look forward to the day where

intellect isn't a sign of the devil.

[LibDemAlways]

51. Some people are hostile toward education.

My late father-in-law believed people who attended college thought they were superior. When my husband finally earned a degree after many years of attending classes at night, his dad didn't even congratulate him.

Where that kind of attitude originates is hard to fathom, but it's out there.

[ixion]

4. yes, they are... what can be done about it? Not much...ignorant people are like drunks

they have to want to change. Most people are too busy being fascinated with American Idol and that ilk to want to improve their mental acumen. Further, our society loathes intelligent people. It's treated like a disease. If you're a person who believes in constantly improving your intelligence, you're labeled a 'brainiac' or and 'egg-head' or an 'elitist', and promptly ignored by the rest of society. Our society values only the physical. Good looks or good bodies. Those of us who work on our minds are shunned.

That's my perspective, at least.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. That is the truth

I've always been looked at strangely because I use proper English in my speech, and actually know what certain Latin terms mean (like "caveat"). I've been told several times that I was being "snooty" when all I was doing was being myself.

And in the town where I'm working, the people privately raised millions of dollars for a stadium with all the latest electronic gadgets. No one from this town has ever gone to the pros--I think only one has even been on the first string of the local college. And yet these people think it is wonderful that they are spending money on this rather than computers or libraries or extra science and math classes.

[ixion]

17. yep, it is the same in my hometown in NE

and UN-L, everything goes to the football team while the library and the and other colleges languish. When I was in school there, they cut the linguistics major and gave the football players a brand new practice building. It's very sad, IMO.

[kedrys]

5. Look at the educational system as a whole

Not just geography. It is to the advantage of the ruling class to collapse the educational system, which they have been doing for the past 40 years at least, because an informed electorate is the last things they want. No mobs with torches and pitchforks allowed here.

There seems to have been a time (admittedly before TV was invented) when most people read, went to the theater (to see plays, not movies), and generally kept themselves informed as best they could considering the lack of mass communications. The general decline of literacy over a long period of time is something that is rarely ascribed to the industrial revolution of the early 20th century, and I think it should be considered at least a contributing factor, along with the rise of the robber barons and the emergence of an ultra-rich class.

FWIW.

[Buzz Clik]

9. I disagree with part of your argument:

Not just geography. It is to the advantage of the ruling class to collapse the educational system, which they have been doing for the past 40 years at least, because an informed electorate is the last things they want. No mobs with torches and pitchforks allowed here.

The "collapse" of the educational system is a myth. An education is available for the taking, but most students choose not to take it. And why is that? It's not because some member of the ruling class told them to be uninterested; their parents simply don't give a damn. They assume that the school does it all. It doesn't happen that way.

If you want to find the best performing public schools, look for the most involved parents. The correlation is 1:1.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. You are absolutely right

and with the collapse of the economy, fewer parents can get involved because they are always working.

Actually, I see a direct correlation between declining interest in school and the rise of television. I still remember when I was teaching in the 80s and cable TV came to town. Kids started cussing and acting more violent in school, and their attention spans started dropping. I found, through talking with parents, that these were the kids who watched the cable stations all the time and did little else. And those parents let them, seeing nothing wrong with it--it was a cheap babysitter.

[Buzz Clik]

28. "With the collapse of the economy, fewer parents can get involved because they are always working."

So true.

That's the tragic part. Parents who care and value education but are making that difficult choice of having to work extended hours or odd hours to provide for the family.

[doni_georgia]

40. low-income parents are most involved at my school

What I see are the low-income parents are very concerned about their children's education. These are the ones who take unpaid time off work to show up for conferences. They are the ones who religiously check their kids' grades on the Internet and who communicate most with the teachers. The parents I can't get to be involved are the upper-middle class parents who seem more concerned with sports and extracurricular activities than their children's education. These are the parents who keep their kids out of school to go snow skiing and to Disney World. These are the kids with horrible attendance. Who take days off to get their hair and nails done and go shopping. My parents from low-income backgrounds know the importance of an education, whereas the others seem to take their affluence for granted.

[Buzz Clik]

42. Yep. I know the types.

My niece is a principal at a high school and has an endless list of horror stories.

[erpowers]

19. Not Completely Sure I agree

I think there are some school were parents care, but may not feel they can change the system. I think parents should be told more often that they can change the system. Sometimes school allow poor teachers to teach students. In terms of teachers some parents might just be scared to stand up to teachers.

[Buzz Clik]

27. You make an excellent distinction: caring versus actual active involvement.

Our school system is top notch, and this is in large part because essentially the entire parent population not only cares but they will be all over the teachers and administration if they feel that the students' education is starting to lag behind.

We seldom agree with the current teaching methods -- lots of standardized tests, canned homework, worksheets, and a general lack of imagination. However, we recognize that, as involved parents, we can enhance our kids' educational experience by simply spending a few hours a week with the kids. (This becomes less necessary as the kids advance into middle school and high school.)

To give you an idea of the effectiveness of the general attitudes in our school system: I frequently volunteer at high school athletic events, particularly track and field. Without fail, during the down time between events, the infield of the track will have many of our student/athletes doing homework. I don't see this with kids from other schools.

[Hepburn]

21. I graduated from HS in the mid-1960s...

...and I was college prep. I had to take a TON of classes and be in the top (IIRC) 10% of my graduating class to qualify to just apply for the University of California.

Fast forward 40 years....not so anymore. The requirements have pretty much been gutted.

IMO, what we have done is lower the bar so "everyone" could have a HS diploma and frankly a HS diploma is pretty meaningless anymore. Even a bachelors degree is getting to the point of being a requirement for many jobs. Read the "Help Wanted" ads. What used to say "HS diploma" required back in the 1960s, many now say "Bachelors degree or AA degree" required.

Lowering the bar has only cheapened the educational goals and done nothing to make our nation better educated.

JMHO

[northzax]

23. I, too, must disagree with a part of your statement:

There seems to have been a time (admittedly before TV was invented) when most people read, went to the theater (to see plays, not movies), and generally kept themselves informed as best they could considering the lack of mass communications. The general decline of literacy over a long period of time is something that is rarely ascribed to the industrial revolution of the early 20th century, and I think it should be considered at least a contributing factor, along with the rise of the robber barons and the emergence of an ultra-rich class.

when was this mythic time you speak of? more books were sold in the US last year than in any previous year. and this year will likely supercede last year, or come within statistical variation, given declining economic power. more people went to broadway shows last year (until the strike) than had ever gone before.

sure, the wealthy, or those with pretentions to wealth, went to jazz clubs, the symphony, plays and had books. everyone else just went home to bed or the local tavern.

so what's the difference now? those who choose not to attain the desired level of knowledge are more involved in civil society. they have a voice. fifty years ago, the only people with a wide-reaching voice were people who wrote for a living, it cost money to publish them, so it took effort. now any tom, dick or harriet can type on this message board, or write an email, or whatever, at a very low opportunity cost. society hears them, where once they were silent. That is not a bad thing, not a bad thing at all, but it makes the average person look less informed, when really the average person is better informed than ever before, we just have a much larger sample pool to draw from.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Turn off the television for starters

I live in an area where many families choose to do so. Their children have, by and large, a longer attention span than their counterparts who watch a lot of TV. They tend to read more and spend time talking with others, especially older folks, who play games with them and show them things like maps. As they get older, they might watch some TV, but the box isn't on 24/7 like it is in many homes. I only watch two TV programs with any regularity, and my world doesn't come to an end if I miss them.

My brother's kids are now in their early 20s, both were class valedictorians, and neither grew up watching much television at all. One is a professional pianist, the other a budding anthropologist. They are anything but dumb. They don't live in my neighborhood, but are surrounded by folks who do have the TV as a shrine. Put in this bit about them to show that going without TV can happen in suburbia as well as in the isolation of the Ozark Mountains.

[Buzz Clik]

7. It's not a matter of dumber. It's a matter of accumulated knowledge.

Many Americans -- starting in their school years but extending beyond -- focus their intellectual energies on relatively useless information. They can program their cell phones but can't tell you the name of the leaders of the countries immediately to the north and south of us. They can use Google to find nude pictures of some teenage actress but they can't tell you who is the Speaker of the House. They can't find other countries on a globe, they can't find other states on a map.

I am currently teaching a class of 20 graduate students. Half of them are brilliant and incredibly informed. Half of them are average at best. Half of them are Americans, half of them are not. Care to venture a guess as to which ones are the brilliant students?

[bdamomma]

8. it is really sad but this is how we are viewed in other countries.

dumb. Our education system is failing, and we will pay a big price for that. Ignorance is not helping either.

[northzax]

10. as Ambrose Bierce once said

"war is God's way of teaching Americans Geography"

and FDR asked people to buy maps of Europe and the Pacific during his fireside chats so that they could follow along and know the places he was talking about.

Americans are not getting 'dumber' that's just silly. The number of people who are educated increases every year, and that means the pool of 'smart people' gets larger, which obviously means that there is a wider range of knowledge out there. You can't know everything, no one can. What we have as an advantage that people in the past haven't, is instantaneous access to machines that have a lot of the information that was once considered crucial to know to be educated. it wasn't so long ago that to be educated meant you spoke Latin. LATIN. who the F%^k cares about Latin? it's helpful for certain pursuits, but it is not a useful thing to know, outside of those few pursuits. sure, I have to google in media res every now and then. but then, my iPhone lets me do that when I need to. I don't need to know how to calculate a logarithm, that button is handily programmed on my calculator. does that make me less educated, that I don't know how to do things like that? I know how and where to get the answers I need, that's enough.

think of it this way. you have a question with 20 general knowledge questions about history, geography, math and science, things that are absolutes and haven't changed in the past 150 years. you have to select 100 people from the bottom half of income in the US, men and women, black and white. random. would you put your money on the 2008 people? the 1958 people? the 1908 people? or the 1858 people?

[doni_georgia]

13. Absolutely

There is another thread on this topic as well, and it is one that needs to be addressed. I believe Americans are more ignorant - not sure if dumber is the right word. There have always been uneducated people in America, but what I see now is a lack of what used to be considered basic literacy in those with some education. I believe part of the problem is the move from teaching facts to teaching higher order thinking skills in the schools. I am a teacher, and I would love for my students to posess higher order thinking skills, but without basic knowledge of certain facts, what are they supposed to be thinking about? In education, we are constantly being told to teach higher on Bloom's taxonomy - not focusing on knowledge level - but focusing on synthesis and analyzing. I have argued for years that Bloom's is fine and dandy so long as it follows the development of students. Elementary and middle school students are not ready to analyze and synthesize. They need FACTS. If facts are taught to younger children, they will be ready to analyze and synthesize by high school and college.

There is a certain school of thought in the educational establishment that believe facts are overrated and outdated in the information age. They believe students can look up facts on the Internet. Unfortunately, in order to understand the facts once they locate them, and in order to separate fact from fiction, these children need to be taught certain facts in the classroom. Maybe children would start to read again if they enough background knowledge to understand what they were reading.

Many would blame the media for the dumbing down of America, but the media simply reflects society in my opinion. Television shows requiring thought and intellect get low ratings - and ratings drive what is on. Everything in our society is instant. Knowledge takes time, and we live in a world where attention spans are short and patience is a rare commodity. As a teacher, I feel as if I have to perform for my students to keep their attention. It is a juggling act of moving fast enough to not lose them while still moving slowly enough that something will make it into their brains. It is frustrating beyond belief.

[Romulox]

14. The majority of population growth is via unskilled/uneducated immigrants

We're stupid by design.

[Fresh_Start]

15. In my lifetime, 30-40% of people used to read a newspaper

now they watch 10 minutes of soundbites.

They are choosing to be less informed.

[enlightenment]

18. I don't like the word "dumber" - it suggests

something biological is going on and that's not the case. People are more ignorant - often wilfully ignorant about their world than in the past.

What should be done? I don't believe it will help, in the long run, to offer visual aids That's the intellectual equivalent of putting gum over a crack in a dam. The larger question is why people make no effort to discover answers to questions (where a country is located on the globe, for instance)? Find a map - buy a globe - look it up on the Internet; the information is there to find and the effort of looking is part of the process of learning. Spoon-feeding information doesn't exercise the brain.

I think - and this is simply an opinion and though I'm using America as an example, I believe the problem is global - that we have become a culture that embraces anti-intellectualism, rather than cherishing the philosophical concept of learning simply for the sake of learning. Take for example, something as basic as spelling. How many people do you know who can't be bothered - and if questioned, will indignantly reply that "it doesn't make any difference. What's important is what I say - not how I spell." Yes, the ideas are more important, but that's doesn't negate the relevance of making the effort to spell the correctly spell the words that express the ideas.

When we begin, again, to realise as a culture that learning is relevant, than change will occur. Until we change our attitude, it's all just patchwork over a growing network of cracks.

[bpeale]

32. i, too, call this WILLFUL IGNORANCE

they CHOOSE to be uninformed. they CHOOSE not to read. they CHOOSE not to be educated ... or get facts ... or do their own research. they CHOOSE to be this way. what's worse, is that they think this willful ignorance is COOL, when actually it's just plain stupid.

[AngryAmish]

20. Objectively: No

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect>

"The Flynn effect is the rise of average Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test scores, an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at greatly varying rates. It is named after James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications. This increase has been continuous and roughly linear from the earliest days of testing to the present. "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial," psychologist Ulric Neisser wrote in an article in 1997 in The American Scientist.<1> The Flynn effect may have ended in some developed nations starting in the mid 1990s although other studies, such as Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization samples (Dickens, Flynn; 2006), still show gain between 1972 and 2002." snip

"The average rate of rise seems to be around three IQ points per decade."

So IQ is going up over time.

[SharonAnn]

35. IQ can go up without knowledge going up.

[AngryAmish]

37. The question is dumber not more ignorent

And actually knowledge is surprisingly necessary to increase IQ.

[truth2power]

22. I don't see how Americans could possibly get any dumber. n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

24. Put the weatherman on primetime news

Weather reporters always point at maps. They could help the news anchors identify those hard-to-find countries.

Sort of joking.

I think my map-knowledge has gone seriously downhill. I don't know if I could locate some of the African countries, or the new Balkan states, or the various "stans" that fell off the Soviet Union. Likewise, most of the emirates, and the South American countries that end in "guay".

Some of the countries I once could find no longer exist. Gold Coast, Rhodesia, etc.

I appreciate it when news reporters use maps. I have to listen to objections when I bring the globe to the dinner table.

:hi:

[Jim__]

25. Doesn't your 2nd question assume that the answer to the first is a given?

Do you asume that Americans are getting dumber? If so, why?

[erpowers]

30. Yes, and Not Completely

Yes, the second question assumes that the first is a given. I did realize that when I first posted the message. I thought about putting my opinion about the first question, but I decided to wait if and until someone asked me about it. I do not completely agree that Americans are getting dumber in that some of the answers to the questions that are used in these surveys seem to be so simple that anyone should know the answer. So, sometimes I wonder if people are just purposely giving wrong answers because they do not want to answer the questions. However, I do realize that it could be true that people are getting dumber. I hope that answered all your questions.

[zbdent]

26. well, when you consider that the catch-all for those who cannot afford private education

at elite schools, "public schooling", has been in the sights of Repukes forever, and the "teachers unions" on "terrorist lists", is it any wonder that "our kids is not learning" ...

Of course, these types who are trying to kill public education and are sickened by teachers' salaries are the exact same types who think that hiring a CEO to head a company, and then guaranteeing him a platinum parachute with absolutely no ties to how the company performs under him, is a good thing ...

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. The problem with that is, the media WANTS us dumb.

Knowledge is power, and ignorance is powerless. This way, they (that is, their corporate masters) have the power and the people have none.

I do remember they used to use map graphics for news stories, but I'm not sure when that stopped. In the 80s, I'd reckon. I seem to remember maps about the Falklands War - maybe the feedback because of that put an end to it - "THAT'S what they're talking about? Why should we give a flying fuck about a spot on the map island at the bottom of the world?" It kind of undercut the drama of the 'British Empire facing down the last of the fascists', to realize it was about a sheep ranch the size of Okrakoke Island.

[NewJeffCT]

31. Not dumber - more are willfully ignorant

I think I read a statistic not too long ago - more people believe in Creationism now than did 100 years ago!

The problem is that since WW2, anti-intellectualism has grown rapidly in the US. It is no longer cool for somebody to be smart - especially boys.

Other cultures have their sports heroes & acting royalty, but they also celebrate the culture's intellectual achievements. How many Nobel Laureates can the average American name? They might be able to name a few Peace Prize winners, like Carter, Gore & Kissinger, but how many can name the top science ones? I bet many of those Nobel people are household names in their countries, though.

[AngryAmish]

38. I don't even know where to begin

So I'll start here: If you think anti-intellectualism is new to American history then your have not been paying attention. Americans have always admired physical prowess in their leaders. george Washington was considered a man of the frontier and a gentleman plant and soldier. Andrew Jackson, etc.

Christian Fundamentalism is a rather new phenomenon. see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals> which were first published in 1917. Biblical inerrancy certainly has its roots in Luther but many very popular sects and beliefs are pretty new.

As to other cultures revering the intellectual: which ones? Ghana? Mexico? Australia? Kurdistan? Many so-called sophisticated Americans think that people in Europe are so much more sophisticated than Americans. B.S. It is an artifact of observation bias. We meet sophisticated Europeans because they are the kind of folks to know a lot of foreigners and then extrapolate that for everyone of their countrymen. It is an intellectual mistake.

Also the US has had so many Noble winners it kinda isn't news.

[NewJeffCT]

45. Every culture has their problems

I'm sure if you went to any country in the world and asked those simple "Man on the street" questions, you could find a ton of people in every country that will give you stupid answers to very simple questions, like when Howard Stern would ask some actress or stripper from California, "What is the capital of New York?" and more than one has answered "New Jersey."

Back in the 1700s and through the mid 1800s, it often behooved a leader of any country to have at least some physical prowess. It's certainly not limited to the US - it goes back to ancient times, which is part of the reason behind Washington & Jackson and the like. Today, that is no longer necessary.

However, the US certainly is at the forefront in choosing leaders that are anti-intellectual "guy that you want to have a beer with" types - Reagan, Bush, even Eisenhower. Heck, even Clinton had some of that going for him, even though he was a Rhodes scholar. And, the US is the only first world country where fundamentalist Christianity has such a strong hold on politics and where a leading presidential candidate can proudly proclaim that the world is 6,000 years old.

[LanternWaste]

36. I think it's simply a matter of intellectual priorities...

I think it's simply a matter of intellectual priorities.

I've seen kids that can break down and set up four networked PC's in less than ten minutes for a night of gaming, yet couldn't put Washington - Lincoln - Kennedy in chronological order.

I know adults who can force my eyes to glaze over with my own ignorance when telling me about the diversification of their investment portfolios, but have never even heard of (let alone read) a classic author.

A parent reading to their children on a regular basis seems almost quaint these days, but there was a time when it was part and parcel of the child's education.

The tools are there in the public schools-- whether the students and parents choose to take advantage of those tolls, well... that's something the school can't force.

I don't think the sum total of our ignorance is any more (or any less) than it was ten, fifteen, twenty, or even fifty years ago. It's merely shifted into newer directions. We've simply (and collectively) decided that there are more important things than arithmetic, classics, or the hard sciences to concentrate on.

[Bill McBlueState]

39. Americans have more to know than they did fifty years ago

Consider the explosion of technology and population over the last fifty years. There's so much more to know these days. It may be that the average American knows as much as he did fifty years ago, but as the world becomes more complex, a fixed amount of knowledge becomes less and less useful.

[KillCapitalism]

41. Failure to take the initiative to inform oneself is a big problem.

You can only get so much from classroom learning, especially when it comes to current events, so I take the time to read DU, my local newspaper, and the WSJ (most of the time). It seems most people just go on with the motions ignoring the world around them, or they're too preoccupied by "bread and circuses." DU is about the only place I can come to discuss issues like FISA, or the effects of subprime lending on the economy. I've tried talking to random strangers I meet about current events, but all I get are funny looks, or they just want to change the subject.

[LibDemAlways]

52. I don't know anyone outside my family who

is willing to "talk politics" either.

Most of those random strangers simply have no interest. Ask them which team they like in any upcoming big game, however, and they'll have an opinion.

[leftofthedial]

43. much dumber in many important areas--and it's intentional

repukes have relentlessly campaigned against public education, spending less and less and forcing the costs onto families, dumbing-down the curriculum (creationist attacks on science and elimination of civics or government courses are the most extreme examples). This has been going on for fifty years and drastically escalated since 1980.

the oligarchy wants us stupid so we'll be more compliant.

[Javaman]

44. For to you say what mean by that? nt

[Florida22ndDistrict]

46. re: Americans Getting Dumber?

While our intellectual standing may not be increasing as rapidly as that of other countries around the world, we are definitely getting smarter each generation. The problem is that other developed nations, and developing nations have put in place better policy concerning education, and have removed the edge that America once had (they are out pacing us). Look at the average IQ from previous generations compared to the latest generation for a starting point.

While todays youth may not be as strong in geography as their parent's generation, that may simply be due to the fact that there is just so much more to know these days. We have a wealth of knowledge and tools at our disposal, and we quite simply can't know it all. We also tend to specialize on specific topics rather then obtaining a myriad of trivial information. We are smarter then previous generations, we just are not as smart as we could be, had proper policy and planing been put into motion.

By the way, if geography is to be used as a ruler for intelligence, would it not be appropriate to consider the world that most Americans live in today? We are the world's only supper power, and as such we care less about those around us. We are opportunists that learn what will give as an advantage in achieving our goals, and knowing where Croatia is located, just holds less value then say how to install a computer hard drive at the moment. I'm sure you will find similar ways to make the older generations look dumb, by asking them about computer programing, computer operation, the Internet, biology (DNA/Evolution), environmental science (alternative energy), etc.

[enlightenment]

47. Not to be rude, but

piffle.

By the way, if geography is to be used as a ruler for intelligence, would it not be appropriate to consider the world that most Americans live in today? We are the world's only supper power, and as such we care less about those around us. We are opportunists that learn what will give as an advantage in achieving our goals, and knowing where Croatia is located, just holds less value then say how to install a computer hard drive at the moment. I'm sure you will find similar ways to make the older generations look dumb, by asking them about computer programing, computer operation, the Internet, biology (DNA/Evolution), environmental science (alternative energy), etc.

You are falling into the very anti-intellectualism trap that we're discussing here.



Intelligence - true intelligence - isn't measured by an IQ test. It's what you do with what you've got that makes the difference. When you say that we only need to learn what will give us an advantage over someone else, you are ringing the death knell for true intelligence. You should value geography as you value your computer skills because they are both knowledge. Super specialisation is self-defeating in the long-run (read what Darwin had to say on the matter). Why would you want to put blinkers on your mind? Do you think your brain has only a limited carrying capacity?

I teach college, so much of my daily interaction is with "young" people - mostly early 20s. Some a bit younger, some older. I am continually amazed at the levels of ignorance they possess. You say that we can make the older generation look dumb "by asking them about computer programing, computer operation, the Internet, biology (DNA/Evolution), environmental science (alternative energy), etc."

Hate to break it to you, but I'm usually the "expert" on all of those topics in my conversations with the younger generation. Now, one thing they do have on me is the ability to text message on their tiny keyboards without even looking at the screen or the keys. Of course they are using "text speak" which has about as much to do with English as cuneiform - but still, I admit, I can't do that at all!

My father, who is 86, is also very well versed in computers, the Internet, evolutionary theory, and alternative energy (as well as geography, global politics, philosophy, military theory, history, and the classics). Why? Not because he has any reason to learn about computers or alternative energy - it gives him no advantage in the world. He learns because he values learning - for learnings sake. And that is the mark of true intelligence.

The moment you say "I don't NEED to know that" you are choosing to be wilfully ignorant. The day you say "I don't need to know that - but I WANT to know it" is when you start along the road to true intelligence.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

48. RE: Not to be rude, but

I was not speaking specifically about myself, just painting broad strokes since the topic was pretty broad to begin with. I am a very probing person and love to learn, which is probably why I generally score around 140 on IQ tests. While I tend to be more interested in the sciences, I have read my share of philosophy, and studied the arts as well. I'm not too shabby when it comes to geography either.

My argument is basically that todays youth simply have a different skill set then what may be used to judge the last generations intelligence. Some of these skills may make us better at taking IQ tests. Some of the skills we may have ignored for the moment, may give the impression that we are ignorant to people like yourself. I think if you spent more time with youth and probe them on a broad range of subjects other then your specialization you may be surprised what they know.

“Hate to break it to you, but I'm usually the "expert" on all of those topics in my conversations with the younger generation”.

Being the expert, generally means you just need to know a little more then the next guy. None the less, being a professor I'm sure your worthy of your “expert” title, but I highly doubt that you are a reflection of the general masses that fit your demographic for age range. We all have our anecdotes. Not that this describes you, but in college many professors that were considered to be the computer experts in their departments seemed to me like they were mildly retarded when it came to computers. But then again, by that point I already knew upwards of 10+ computer languages, I was A+ certified in computer repair, I had a wealth of knowledge on computer networking and security, and had been the administrator of a technical support forum for just about 5 years. One mans expert is another's novice.

[enlightenment]

55. Hmm -

It was the "we" in your posts that led me to believe you were speaking - or at least including yourself in the discussion. Those personal pronouns are tricky.

So - speaking broadly, but responding to your post.

Again, what I am saying is that using an IQ test to measure intelligence is only as good as the test. Like most tests, an IQ test mostly measures an individuals ability to take a test. It can give you a sense of potential, but that's about it. The ability to take a test doesn't make you "smarter."

I put the word "expert" in quotes to imply precisely what you have said - that I know a bit more about those things, occasionally a lot more about those things than my students. The fact that I, as an historian, do spend a considerable amount of time discussing science, computers, politics, etc, with my students gives me leave to say - I believe - that I have "probed them on a broad range of subjects other than my specialisation." I am occasionally impressed; but more often than not, I find myself questioning why my students - children of the computer age; presumably weaned on the damn things; permanently welded to their cell phones/blackberries/ipods and the like . . . why those students apparently can't figure out how to adjust the margins on their papers.

It's not stupidity - it's willful ignorance. They don't know how to do it because they don't want to know how to do it. Even after they realise that they NEED to know how to do it. I still get arguments. For example; "why do I have to fix the paper that way? Why can't I just turn it in this way? You can read it - what difference does it make? I'll never use this again. It's stupid."

That is willful ignorance. I'm not an arbitrary person. I don't make stuff up just to persecute students. I want them to do things certain ways for good reasons, which I explain to them. Unfortunately, my reasons don't seem to matter - because all it means to them is that they have to learn something they don't want to learn.

Am I broad brushing? Sure. Not all young people are like that. Many are like you. I would argue the same for my generation; some are not like me, but many are.

This isn't really about generational differences, in the end. You're the one who brought it up initially. It's about a culture of anti-intellectualism that uses specious justifications for rejecting learning for learnings sake.

[MedleyMisty]

53. Nice save.

I read the first two sentences of the first paragraph and was already preparing my rebuttal - I absolutely hate it when people say that you can't be smart unless you're using it in the way they say you should - which generally means being middle management in some big corporation and engaging in evil for a large paycheck and social status in a sick and dying and psychopathic society.

But then I realized that's what you were actually arguing against. Reading comprehension for the win.

[Perry Logan]

49. I read that IQ's are going up, and that SAT scores are at an all-time high.

I hope it wasn't a dream.

[hyphenate]

50. Back in 1990 or 1991,

from what I recall, they re-scaled the SATs and the ACHs. So they are trying to make it look like everything is just peachy-keen.

[Spike89]

54. No way, it's just easier to find dumb people now

Seriously, its only been a handful of generations that we've come close to universal K-12 schooling. Turn of the last century you'd have been hard pressed to find a random sample of Americans with more than a couple years schooling on the average. Despite the myth of the good ol' one room schoolhouse producing scholars through judicious beatings and rigorous spelling bees--the truth was that most blacks, many women/girls, and most of the poor simply didn't get to attend school, of if they did, it was extremely limited in scope and duration.

Today, we have almost universal high school-level education. There are still serious gaps in access to college, but seriously, do you think college was in reach for many people in the 1920s, even the 1950s? Dumb* people do have more opportunity to make themselves visible today, but that is partly because they are literate (ok, maybe only semi-literate). Media panders to them because what is better demographic for advertisers than dumb people?

Despite perceptions, it's obvious that there are fewer (as a percentage) dumb people and they are not as dumb as the dumb ones of the past.

*Dumb is a crappy word, ignorant is better, but I thought I'd stick to the terms used in the OP

[BeHereNow]

56. The sad news is... more and more of them are showing up on DU.

My ignore button is smoking these days.
BHN